Plaintiffs filed a class action against the State of Illinois under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) concerning “the proper way to provide care for the developmentally disabled”; specifically, whether the developmentally disabled are better served by institutionalized care or by integration into the community. Ligas v. Maram, 478 F.3d 771, 772-73 (7th Cir. 2007). Plaintiffs believed the latter, and filed suit designed “to hasten the state of Illinois down the road to community-based care,” id., at 773. Certain members of the proposed class, however, feared that they would be forced into community-based programs even if they preferred institutionalized care, so they petitioned the federal court for leave to intervene, either as of right or permissively. Id., at 773. Defense attorneys and plaintiffs in the class action opposed intervention; the district court denied leave to intervene and the proposed intervenors appealed. Id. The Court of Appeals affirmed, rejecting the effort to intervene in the class action.

With respect to the issue of intervention as of right, the Seventh Circuit defined the issues on appeal as “whether the action threatens to impair that interest and whether the parties fail to represent those interests adequately.” Ligas, at 774. The only possible impairment of proposed intervenors’ interests would be if they were no longer able to choose whether to receive institutionalized care, id. The district court found, however, that the class action complaint was “replete with language on choice,” id. The appellate court agreed, holding that nothing in the class action complaint would force community-based care upon those who desired institutionalized care. Id. With respect to adequate representation of their interests, the district court found proposed intervenors’ arguments to be “at best speculative, and at worst conclusory,” id. Again the Circuit Court agreed.

Additionally, the district court addressed proposed intervenors’ concerns by denying the initial motion to certify a class action and instructing plaintiffs to narrow the definition of the class. Plaintiffs complied, redefining the class so as to consist of those “who would not oppose community placement.” Ligas, at 775. As this language came directly from United States Supreme Court precedent, see Olmstead v. L.C. ex rel. Zimring, 527 U.S. 581 (1999), the appellate court approved of this new definition. Ligas, at 775.

With respect to permissive intervention, the Seventh Circuit observed that such relief is left to the sound discretion of the district court and concluded that the lower court had not abused that discretion in denying leave to intervene. Ligas, at 775-76. While the district court’s reasoning was not segmented into the various issues it was required to consider, the Circuit Court found that “the decision shows a thorough consideration of the interests of all the parties and concludes by denying the intervenors’ motions in toto.” Id., at 776. Accordingly, it affirmed the district court’s order denying proposed intervenors leave to amend in the class action.

NOTE: On appeal, proposed intervenors alternatively requested that they be given “conditional intervention subject to a future showing that the state defendants are not adequately representing their interests,” Ligas, at 776; however, because this issue was not raised in the district court, it was deemed waived on appeal, id.

Michael J. Hassen's litigation practice spans almost 30 years and emphasizes general business and commercial litigation, including class action defense and unfair business practice representative actions (section 17200).

He represents lenders in all facets of lender litigation, ranging from class actions and unfair business practices based on alleged "predatory" lending and RESPA violations or alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, to claims alleging elder abuse or challenging the validity or priority of liens.

Michael also has significant experience in business torts such as misappropriation of trade secrets and raiding of corporate employees, ADA claims, and all phases of commercial and real estate finance, construction finance and construction defect claims.

He is experienced in appellate matters, having had primary responsibility for preparing more than 100 appellate briefs.